Legislation to Improve Safety and Security Oversight of the Department of Energy

March 22, 2000

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss the proposal for
external regulation of facilities owned or operated by the Department
of Energy, and in particular to explain the Commission's views on the
recently introduced bill, H.R. 3907, "External Regulation of the
Department of Energy Act." As the Commission previously testified
before the House Science Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
on July 22, 1999, and before the House Commerce Committee's Subcommittee
on Energy and Power on May 20, 1998, the Commission believes that NRC
could be the sole external regulator of DOE nuclear and radiological safety,
if the Congress determined that such regulation was in the best interests
of the Nation. The Commission also testified that we believe that a majority
of the technical, policy, and regulatory issues identified during the
NRC/DOE pilot program at three DOE facilities can be adequately resolved
within the existing NRC regulatory framework. We see a path to resolving
the remaining issues and we continue to stand by our previous testimony.

Today we are testifying on a significantly different approach than that
discussed in previous Commission testimony. H.R. 3907 would require the
NRC to assume regulatory jurisdiction over the entirety of DOE's activities
-- both defense and non-defense -- at one time. The Commission strongly
prefers a multi-phased approach, as former Chairman Dicus testified to
the House Science Committee in July of last year. Exactly such a multi-phased
approach was contemplated by the House Science Committee last fall in
Section 15 of H.R. 1656.

Our concern is that a one-phase approach could divert significant agency
resources from important ongoing regulatory initiatives relating to current
NRC licensees. These initiatives, in areas such as license renewal, license
transfers, a new reactor oversight process, a more effective license amendment
process, and dry cask storage for spent nuclear fuel, have been urged
by Congress and require significant agency resources to bring to fruition.
NRC previously testified that it could initially regulate the relatively
less complex, less costly facilities of DOE's Office of Energy Research,
now the Office of Science (SC), and Office of Nuclear Energy, now the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology (NE) -- and that, subject
to receiving adequate resources, it could then gradually phase in the
more complex, more costly facilities of DOE's Office of Environmental
Management (EM) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)
over a period of several years. Assuming responsibility for all DOE nuclear
facilities at one time could overwhelm the agency and place at risk the
critical regulatory initiatives currently underway. Thus, the Commission
does not believe that the approach described in H.R. 3907 is feasible,
even if significant resources were made available. Indeed, aside from
the SC and NE facilities, at this point we would have a very hard time
estimating the necessary NRC resources without further study.

Let me give you an example of the cost associated with a very complex
facility. The NRC now provides regulatory advice to the DOE concerning
DOE's Hanford Tank Waste Remediation Systems project. This effort includes
a resident inspector, who is on site full time, and significant involvement
both by our Headquarters staff and our Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory
Analyses in Texas. There is no prospect for an NRC regulatory role until
at least 2015 under DOE's current program, yet NRC's current assistance
is costing about $2.4 million each year. The Hanford project is extraordinarily
complex. Nonetheless, there are many complex DOE EM and NNSA facilities
presenting many challenges, both from a technical and programmatic perspective.
Without a transition period and phased approach, we would have great difficulty
estimating the likely NRC resources required. The immediate assumption
of authority over potentially hundreds of such complex DOE EM and NNSA
facilities would likely overwhelm our staff and put at risk the progress
we have made in regulatory initiatives affecting our current licensees.

The Commission respectfully urges the Committee to consider the phased
approach to external regulation of DOE advocated in 1996 by DOE's Working
Group on External Regulation. We would see an overall gain in public health
and safety only if NRC regulation of DOE were undertaken in a manner that
does not risk diverting the Commission's attention from the NRC's primary
mission of ensuring the safety and security of civilian nuclear facilities.

Another issue which is not addressed in the bill is NRC's authority to
regulate safeguards -- that is, physical protection and material control
and accounting. We believe that these matters are so integrally linked
to safety issues that it is important for the effectiveness of NRC's regulatory
oversight that safeguards authority be explicitly included.

As I stated at the outset, we believe that a majority of the technical,
policy, and regulatory issues identified during the NRC/DOE pilot program
can be adequately resolved within the existing NRC regulatory framework.
Others will require clarification in statute. We would be pleased to work
with the Committee on these provisions.

In conclusion, we appreciate the confidence that this Committee has demonstrated
in NRC by introducing H.R. 3907. We support the bill in spirit, but strongly
believe that a phased approach focusing on the less complex and less costly
DOE SC and NE facilities should be the first step. We stand ready to work
with the Committee to identify an appropriately phased approach.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. We would be pleased to answer any questions that
you and Members of the Subcommittee may have.